Miscellaneous desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 4

challenging sports

which sports are the most challenging ones, (plz tell me everyone of them)? is soccer a challenging one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.128.254 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all sports are challenging if you play them at a high enough level. Pick any sport played at the Olympics and try to play it at an Olympic level - and I can pretty much guarantee you'll find it challenging. SteveBaker (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme ironing or bog snorkelling? The beauty of all sport is that it can be challenging at every level, depending on how good you are at it and who you play against. Rockpocket 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to know a lot more about you to even begin to answer this question. We could say that billiards isn't that hard but then you may not have arms... Dismas|^(talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any ironing would be extreme for moi, but in case you're thinking of a sport for a daring character called Bourne or Bond someone or other, there's Base jumping, free diving and erm, free running where people scale architecture and other urban sites. But then nerds have found soccer extremely challenging. Especially meeting a crack team of 9-year-olds that made it look paranormal. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question depends also on whether you mean challenging on a skill level or on an endurance level. The Marathon, for instance, is not very challenging on a skill level, as long as you can run. However, it taxes human endurance. As long as you can swim, and ride a bike, if you want a *really* challenging sport for endurance, the triathlon would be the one for you; especially the ironman triathlon. This would be mroe challenging than the Decathlon since it is consecutive, not over a couple days.

On the other hand, if you're talking skill, something like baseball doesn't tax your endurance as much if you play the outfield, but having the hand-eye co-ordination to hit a slider or curve ball coming at you at 80 miles an hour takes incredible skill. Many players have been good enough at every other aspect, but never got out of the low minor leagues on a consistent basis because they couldn't hit a curve ball.

Where does soccer fit into all of this? Running so much for 90 minutes,w here there are no timeouts like in American football, takes quite a bit of endurace. I would rate it as fairly challenging and knowing where to on the endurance level, because you have to keep turning and following the ball and risk running into other players. Being able to kick a ball in itslef doesn't seem as challenging to me, but heading or using your knees or whatever to do it makes it a bit tougher in that area. I would say there, like in baseball, it depends on your position. It's probably more challenging skill-wise for those who much try to score, or for the goalkeeper (who needs lightning reflexes) than it does for defenders. However, as I don't follow soccer much, I wouldn't say for sure.

As for which one requres the best combination of challenges for skill and endurance, I would have to think about that. I'll leave it to someone else to answer that, as it could be a question in itself.Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess. --noosph e re 02:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Water Polo can make a run at being one of the most challenging sports, requiring hand-eye cordination, swimming ability, endurance and brute strength. I remember ESPN had an article where they ranked sports on their skill level, endurance, etc., I'll see if I can dig it up. Livewireo (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what's so bogus about the whole question here. Water polo played with a bunch of friends and a beach ball in your backyard pool isn't challenging at all - no skill, stamina or hand-eye coordination is required at that level of play. On the other hand (...trying to pick an "easy" sport here...) Monopoly is insanely difficult at the highest level of play. The point being that all sports (that I can think of offhand) are played by increasingly more competent people who push the level of difficulty up to the limits of what a human can reasonably achieve - so the highest levels of play in absolutely all sports is guaranteed to be 'challenging'. ESPN's evaluation isn't saying what is the most challenging sport - only which particular niche abilities are challenged the most...and that's a question we COULD answer (eg "Which sport requires you to run the fastest?"). I suppose one way marginally better way to answer this one would be to think of a sport that you can't play AT ALL unless you have some high level of competence. I guess pole-vaulting would be one - to pole vault AT ALL is pretty difficult. The Scottish sport of tossing the caber is hard because to compete at all you have to be able to lift something half the size of a medium-sized tree and make it tumble end-over-end! But at their highest levels of play - all sports MUST be equally challenging. Hence, this is an unanswerable question. My first answer is the correct one. So pick any damned sport you like and play it to the limits of your ability - and it'll be challenging (by definition). SteveBaker (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess boxing, anyone? Steewi (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THREE DAY EVENTING 86.53.80.11 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mabye Triathlons--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decathlon more likely76.97.245.5 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White House defenses

Many times I've seen references to the White House supposedly having surface to air missiles in case of air attack. The most recent example was our article on Frank Eugene Corder, who crashed a small Cessna into the White House lawn. I'd like to find something that either confirms or denies the presence of these missiles but using the words "White House Missiles" doesn't really narrow anything down on Google. Can anyone here lend a hand in figuring out if this is an urban legend or if it has a bit of truth to it? Dismas|^(talk) 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There has long been an urban legend that Stinger missiles are mounted on the White House roof, but sources said that has never been true." From: Don Phillips, "Flight Crew Made Numerous Errors; Restricted Airspace Over Capital Was Violated Twice", The Washington Post, April 4, 2002. Rockpocket 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the W.H. had any esoteric defenses, the government would deny it. The West Wing TV series referred to an atomic missle silo underneath the Eisnhauer Putting Green, but I don't think it's verifiable without breaking some sort of espionage law. Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing thing was a practical joke, if you remember :) Someone was tricking Donna. As for surface to air missiles on the roof, I don't see any. Doesn't tell you much maybe, could be that they're hidden under the ceiling. However, I strongly suspect it's not true. If the White House were attacked, the President would probably be roughly taken by the Secret Service into some underground, nuke-proof bunker connected to the White House, and fighter jets would be scrambled to intercept whatever bad guys are on the way there. That would be much more effective than just a few stingers on the roof. Belisarius (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's known that the Google maps photo of the White House roof is doctored. It tells you nothing. It's absolutely certain that there are structures on the roof that are not shown in Google maps because you can see them in numerous photos taken by the public from the side of the building. SteveBaker (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources for that, Steve? I'd be interested to see for myself. Rockpocket 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that when the government first complained to Google - their immediate reaction was simply to erase all rooftop detail (per: [1]) - later they put back some detail (per the discussions here: [2] - the image on that page is 'live' so the blurring the people are talking about is different now) and the latest version (here: [3]) has still more detail. However, none of those turns out to be "real" imagery. They are all doctored in some manner. Anyway do appropriate Google searches and you'll find TONS of sites that show the various stages of photoshopping that's gone on over about the last 8 years. SteveBaker (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is interesting, though also rather futile considering the number of buildings around with views of the roof. Rockpocket 22:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Stinger missiles don't need to be mounted anywhere. They are man-portable. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is a fictional novel, many of Tom Clancy's novels feature a uprising amount of accurate tactical details about the U.S. government and military. In one of them, Debt of Honor] I believe, there were SS agents with portable Stinger surface-to-air missiles on the rooftops during the President's State of Union address. Acceptable (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the Cold War, Nike anti-aircraft missile bases were emplaced in rings around many major cities, including D.C. The site at Lorton, Virginia is now a park and is the proposed site of the Cold War Museum. I recall that after 9/11, the U.S. Army emplaced M1097 Avengers in D.C. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The craziest bit is that you wouldn't necessarily have a lot of time to react if it was a large plane coming in right after taking off from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, or one that was ostensibly landing but quickly changed course. It's a pretty dumb place to put an airport, from a security standpoint. If they spent the money on a bullet train from Dulles instead, I would imagine the efficiency would be preserved without any of the safety issues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The airport has been there since 1930 (and it sounds from the article that it replaced an airport that was even closer) - so it's not clear that any actual planning went into the location! Crashing a 1930's plane into the White house would probably do little more than scratch the paint. SteveBaker (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel universe

Is it possible that there's a parallel universe where fiction that we create in this universe such as Star Wars is real?--Young Jedi Knights (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone more chatty comes along, we have multiverse, modal realism and good old David Kellogg Lewis. I'm wondering which one he's in right now, goodnight from Australia.Julia Rossi (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that, Pantheistic solipsism and if you want some good fiction to go along with all this theory, check out Robert A. Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. Dismas|^(talk) 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is possible if there are an infinite number of universes with their own laws of physics.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the act of creating the fiction here creates the parallel universe there? Or do you mean that fiction is created here as a sort of cosmic cross-talk, and that their fiction mimics our reality? Or do you mean that every possible state of affairs is represented in some parallel universe somewhere? In any case, the answer is no. Human thought has the power to activate our muscles, and that's it; ask Steven Hawking. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really can't tell what is fact and what is fiction, because who knows, maybe what is fiction in our universe is fact in a parallel one. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are infinitely many parallel universes (which is what proponents of the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory believe) - then the answer is "Yes!" - to the limits of the laws of physics (assuming those apply to all of those parallel universes). So if the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit in all of those universes - then faster-than-light travel is impossible in all of them. However, every Agatha Christie murder mystery has played out exactly in real life an infinite number of places in an infinite number of universes. Of course there are also an infinite number of worlds where Hercule Poirot is a pink talking Aardvark. But we don't even need parallel universes. If our own universe is infinite - then somewhere - on a far distant planet, long, long ago - there were robots called R2-D2 and C3PO. Infinity is a very large number! SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I said before.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that if my previous answer is correct - then our universe is a fictional story in some other universe. In fact, me typing this message is the subject of a major motion picture and if I type "wibble, wibble, wibble" - some poor director somewhere has to figure out how to make that a part of the motivation of his lead character! SteveBaker (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of using a pseud-ad hominem argument here, @ Milkbreath, Hawking's thoughts don't seem to be activating his muscles too much. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if his thoughts could effect any other change, he would certainly avail himself of that capability. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's reserving brane space, ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Consider what would have to happen if an author makes a change. What about works that are not even internally self-consistent? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the inconsistency breaks a physical law (a law that is present in all universes) - then, no. But if (for example) the author screws up and writes that a plot that infers that Ms. Marple solves the crime by being in two places at once - there WILL be some universes where Ms. Marple's long-lost identical twin sister will happen to show up and by an AMAZING flook happen to gather the necessary information. (And in some of those universes, their identical pet pink aardvarks will be with them - a surprising and notable fact which the author somehow fails to mention!) The nature of an INFINITE number of worlds allows (in fact, actually REQUIRES) some truly spectacular coincidences to occur. SteveBaker (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fluke -lysdexia 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement in the United States of America

I was reading Law enforcement in the United States and was amazed by the number of law enforcement agencies there are in the USA. It seems that every government department, every state, every county and every city have multiple police forces totalling up to 800,000 forces. Alot of these forces also seem to have overlapping jurisdictions. Why are there so many and how can the whole law enforcement system work effectively with so many forces? Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is mostly OR and my personal opinion having lived my life in the US. The abundance of forces is one of the reasons why it works. And it's all relatively straight forward. The fed cops cover federal buildings and such. They're trained in the various specific details of what can and cannot occur on federal land. The state troopers are mostly highway cops who patrol the larger interstate highways. To have some other smaller force do this would be strange since being on an interstate, the officer could easily pass from one town to another in just minutes without having reached another exit. Or even one county to the next with barely covering any territory at all. Then the county cops or sheriffs patrol the smaller roads as well as protecting municipalities that don't have the budget or population to maintain a municipal police force. For instance, the town I live in is only a thousand people or so. We don't have the money for a police force of our own, so the county sheriff covers us. And finally the municipal or local police cover their own towns. Each one can request backup or assistance from any of the others. If something like a murder happens in a small town, they can call on the county or state forces for help in detective work and evidence collection and analysis. And meanwhile, the local cops know their jurisdiction better than, for instance, a state cop would because they often live in the area and work/patrol there daily. Then many (every?) states have a bureau of investigation much like the FBI which has quite a bit of experience with things like gangs, drugs, serial killers, etc whose 'territory' may cover more than just one town or county. Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That covers many areas. Where I grew up state forces covered highways and county covered poorer towns and rural areas. Where I live now, however, it is state forces that cover poorer towns. Also at the highest levels, each force can be very specialized: Alcohol, Tobacco, Explosives and Firearms (or whatever their current name is) covers a different area than Immigration or the Drug Enforcement Agency. The Secret Service specializes in protection and anti-counterfeiting. Gangs and drugs are often the target of multi-agency task forces. One my father worked with had members from something like 20 agencies and departments. Rmhermen (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries have multiple agencies and forces. See things like List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom and List of law enforcement agencies in Canada. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is attributable to federalism and the jockeying for power among various governments and govt agencies. Living in Washington, D.C., the number of law enforcement agencies is bewildering. In the area, I have come across: MPD; United States Capitol Police; United States Park Police; sheriffs from Arlington County, Montgomery County, & Prince George's County; Secret Service; BATF; U.S. Marshals; Virginia & Maryland state troopers; Howard University Police; Supreme Court Police; TSA agents; United States Federal Protective Service; Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police; Amtrak Police; and my favorite, FBI Police. About half have issued me speeding tickets. —D. Monack ^talk 08:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pistol hunting

In what states are you allowed to hunt small game with a pistol?--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find a list on line, and no wonder—each state determines the weapons permitted for hunting within its borders, and the laws are by no means standardized in format. They change from year to year, too. I looked at the first three in the alphabet (Alabama, Alaska, and Arizona) and quickly discovered that I wasn't going to want to take the time to look at them all right now. Not only are there differences among "pistols" that make a difference, the ammunition used matters: Some want centerfire, and Arizona wants a handgun to fire shot at birds. Alaska barely mentions weapons at all, so it looks like pretty much anything that isn't forbidden, like artillery or full auto, is kosher. Furthermore, "small game" covers a lot of territory; the rules for bird, varmints, furbearers, non-game types, etc. are going to be different, too. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handguns are also often more heavily regulated than long-guns so just because "someone" can hunt with a pistol in a given state, it doesn't necessarily follow that "you" can. Rmhermen (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on my state government’s website it said you can hunt small game (discluding federally regulated migratory birds) with a hand gun as long as you have a pistol permit.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never come across small game that was armed... Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

future problem

i am a sudent from nigeria, west africa. i have been given the opportunity to study abroad perharps in the u.k but i have no idea of what to study please help me pick a reasonable course. i offer the following subjects in our nigerian syllabus; mathematics, english, literature-in-english, government, french, foods and nurition, biology and christian religious knowledge. what 3 good courses do you think i can offer with these subjects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeyeesha (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, you are allowed to take 3 of those classes, and would like to know which will best prepare you for study in the UK. If so, I'd say English (as you seem to need a little work yet there), math, and biology. Of course, this would also be influenced by what you want to do in life. If your goal is to be head chef in a French restaurant, then I'd go with French and food/nutrition, instead of math and biology. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading your post, now I'm thinking you are currently taking all of those classes you listed, and want to know which majors and careers those might prepare you for in the UK. In addition to working in a restaurant, how about working as a translator, or a religious leader (priest, etc.) ? Many other careers are possible, however. There are some other factors to consider, too, such as which classes you do best at and enjoy. Also, if you are 12, take general classes, while if you are 24, it's time to start specializing in specific work skill classes. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, you're aged about 16 to 18 and you're taking those subjects for the Nigerian SSCE exams. You wonder what degree subjects you could take in the UK. As an international student you don't have to apply through UCAS, but on the UCAS website [www.ucas.ac.uk] you will find all the degrees in all the UK universities listed, with entry requirements. Although the entry requirements are only stated in terms of UK and EU qualifications, in some cases you can see specific subjects that the universities are looking for. The range of degrees available is bewildering: everything from French literature to microbiology to golf course management and surfing studies. I agree with StuRat that should consider what your goal in life is. You should also think about which subjects you already like studying. You probably need distinction grades in most of your subjects in order to be accepted into a UK university, and it would definitely be good to have a distinction in any particular subject you wants to pursue in a UK university. I.e. if you want to take a degree related to biology you need a distinction in biology at SSCE. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism??

Every other time I make an edit, and check my contributions page, I find the words [rollback] and [vandalism] written beside a few edits of mine, even though they are clearly not vandalism. Why? La Alquim ista 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an automatic vandalism bot, which is going off keywords. For example, if you said "I like girls with big titties", that might trigger such a bot, while it might be a valid addition to Wikipedia if it's a verifiable quote by Bill Clinton. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those the links created by twinkle to automatically revert edits? Algebraist 16:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What could you be vandalizing, La Alquimista? You have never edited an article. (What are you doing here?) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! I think you could be verging on being rude there..... I'm a student, and being one who'll be giving her boards in a month, I've got precious little time editing articles. However, I have edited two today, and before that, I merely hung aroung the Ref Desks a lot, asking questions, and answering a few as well. Also, joining Wikipedia made me realise how it works, much like understanding the inner mechanism of a complex little piece of machinary. Exactly what I do here is none of your business, though, as long as you just answer the question I asked. I'm not going to start miniature Wiki-wars here. Thank you. La Alquim ista 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the [rollback] and [vandalism] look like those in this this picture? This would be the Twinkle tool, which you may have activated in your preferences under the "gadgets" section. They allow you to automatically revert another person or your own edits quickly, and the reason it would only show for a few of the edits is that only pages where you have made the last edit can be rolled back. Hope this helps, though if it doesn't the Wikipedia Help Desk may be of use as they specialize in Wikipedia related questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. That explains it perfectly! I had totally forgotten that I'd activated Twinkle in my preferences, because I've never used it since. La Alquim ista 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

playing cards

There is a word that conveys the information that a person playing cards is holding a hand of thirteen cards none of which is hihger than nine or possibly ten.I know there is such a word but it escapes me. your answer will be appreciated thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.41.134 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In contract bridge, a Yarborough. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the semen go?

After a guy has vaginal intercourse with a girl and ejaculates inside of her (hence, no condom), where does the semen eventually go? Is there a difference to the final destination of the semen if the girl becomes impregnated vs not impregnated? Where would it end up if it was anal intercourse? Hustle (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From our article, Sexual intercourse#In humans: "The subsequent route of the sperm from the vault of the vagina is through the cervix and into the uterus, and then into the fallopian tubes.... When a fertile ovum from the female is present in the fallopian tubes, the male gamete joins with the ovum resulting in fertilization and the formation of a new embryo." The rest of the sperm (or if fertilization doesn't happen, all of the sperm) hangs around for a while before eventually dying and disintegrating.

If you have anal sex, the sperm will likely remain in the rectum until being vacated. Rockpocket 21:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, after vaginal intercourse, some of the semen does flow back out of the vagina. Dismas|^(talk) 22:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear most does.[4]--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cell phone ...

If I drop it in the mailbox, will it find it's way back to its owner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.95.34 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it has the owner's postal address written on it, and an appropriate value in postage stamps attached. It might be a better idea to look through the numbers stored on the phone for one labeled "home" or "work", call that number and tell the person who answers you have their phone. Rockpocket 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find the owner's number on the phone, look for the entry named "mom"[5]. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing that, check for "ICE" or the E.123 protocol for emergency contacts. Rockpocket 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could use that phone to call your own phone and see what name comes up on the caller-Id - from that, you might find their land-line number in the phone book. Failing that, you might try calling the service provider (AT&T, whatever) and ask them to contact the owner. SteveBaker (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most phones keep a record of calls recieved and calls placed. When a friend of mine lost her phone the person who found it called the last number dialed, which happened to be my number. My phone rang and caller ID showed that it was my friend calling. I thought that a bit odd since I was sitting across the dinner table from her. :) The caller explained that he had found a cellphone in a parking lot, asked if I knew whose phone he was using and if I had an alternate way to contact the owner. He was even nice enough to bring the phone to us. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A month or two ago my phone fell out of my pocket on BART. Someone found it and tried some of the speed-dial numbers; I had already reported the phone missing, so they didn't work, but she was able to extract the actual numbers and call them on her own phone. —Tamfang (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement (better) battery for Motorola portable phone

Yeah I know this question isn't sexy or interesting, but can someone take pity on me anyway? I haven't a clue when it comes to this stuff. I bought a set of two Motorola portable phones (land lines but no cords, not cells; they sit on recharger bases that are plugged in). I've looked everywhere on them for a model number but I don't see it. The batteries on them are TERRIBLE! After sitting on their charges for hours they have about 10 minutes talk time in them and then they run out of battery and they're only a month old. If you let them sit for a few hours off the charger but donlt use them and then try to use them you get out five minutes before they die. Can anyone tell me what kind of batteries I can purchase online to replace the duds in the phones?The battery inside says "Sanik 3SN-600mAh PILE AU NICKEL-METAL HYDRIDE BATTERY There is a sticker insiode the phone which does have a model number on it, but I think it might be the battery's and not the phones. In any event, it's SD7500 series. Thank you.--68.237.248.155 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On amazon, an equally frustrated user recommends replacing the Sanik charger ASAP with an Energizer ER-P510, Nickel Metal Hydride technolgy for around USD 13 (assuming you are in the USA). This [6] page has a few pictures of Sanik batteries; you may find out which one it is. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar problem with some Uniden walkie-talkies I own. I suspect that the problem is the charger, as in the above response. Specifically, I believe they use "dumb" chargers that keep charging no matter what, thus frying the batteries in short order. A good charger, on the other hand, will detect when the battery is fully charged and then stop trying to charge it. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikipedia

I could not find the right place to ask this question or discover the answer, so...what is Wikipedia's mission statement/goal? Thank you, The Reader who Writes (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, WP:5P is about the nearest thing to a mission statement. Deor (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also that famous Jimmy quote: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Sounds like a mission statement/goal to me. Belisarius (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Jimmy Wales to clarify the statement. While it is the Foundation's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge, our pratical rule building stops us from including ALL knowledge in Wikipedia. We have Wikinews, Wikiquite, Wikibooks, etc for other types of information. Therefore this statement is best applied to the foundation rather than Wikipedia.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Wikipedia itself is not an 'organization' - it's just one product of the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundations' bylaws does indeed include a mission statement:

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

SteveBaker (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should also keep in mind, of course, that most of what one considers to be "Wikipedia" is a product of the actions of Wikipedia editors, not the Wikimedia Foundation. On most issues the WMF lets editors work things out for themselves and do not intervene. It would be highly inaccurate to characterize all of Wikipedia's editors as working towards the same goals, for the same reasons. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - but it's tough to stray far from the Five Pillars...which are ultimately the principles that we try to stick to. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Guide online

I remember seeing somewhere a browsable online version of Thomas Guide a few months ago (it looked like Mapquest), but I can't find it anymore. I hope there are Angelenos around here. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several different searches and found dozens upon dozens of websites that will be happy to sell the paper version, but no online version. It appears that all the online aspects of www.thomas.com now redirect to Rand McNally's website. If what you're looking for still exists, the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps are the ones most likely to know. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]